alegocentr Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Hi, have someone used this setup in their job? Any ideas will it work properly or are there any kind of problems that suddenly will happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 no problem at all. its how i run my QRXs into my 788. has the advantage of freeing up the XLR/TA3 inputs should you need to use another source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alegocentr Posted September 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Thanks for the answer! I wonder why just a few people use this combination it seem to me that it can be very convenient remembering all 788 control extensions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 I use it this way, too. And it really is great to switch to another analogue source on the same input without having to repatch anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 Not to mention 788T has limiters on AES inputs and full 8 channels. "Nomad has 8 AES Only if you sacrifice Zaxnet" If it was not for the zaxnet, the superior routing and better interface I would be using a 788T. For the limiters... Nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 If it was not for the zaxnet, the superior routing and better interface I would be using a 788T. . If you don't mind my asking, purely out of curiosity, what is it that makes the Nomad's routing capabilities better than the 788T's? Also the better interface? This is not meant as another heated "this is better than that" discussion, I'm only curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadoStefanov Posted September 12, 2014 Report Share Posted September 12, 2014 If you don't mind my asking, purely out of curiosity, what is it that makes the Nomad's routing capabilities better than the 788T's? Also the better interface? This is not meant as another heated "this is better than that" discussion, I'm only curious as far as interface it is subjective , routing clearly better... Just the fact that I have 2 different com and slate . The routing matrix l the outputs and inputs.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted September 13, 2014 Report Share Posted September 13, 2014 as far as interface it is subjective , routing clearly better... Just the fact that I have 2 different com and slate . The routing matrix l the outputs and inputs.... Ok, com and slate isn't routing, that's another function. The 788 with CL-9 does have that, too, but that's not the point. On the 788 you can route any input (and any number inputs) to any track and any output. What would the Nomad be doing better in this regard? I bet I'd agree about the interface. I don't know it on the Nomad, but on the 788, I am not very thrilled Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.279748a58a2b862b7aa5f3b84126e232.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.